In a totally different vein to self-indulgent familial nostalgia I will be discussing an author in this post. An author of such titles as; ‘Stalin’s British Training, Breeding Concubines, Paedophiles at War‘ (2007) and ‘Hitler was a British Agent‘ (2005). I find this interesting.

I came across this guy researching an upcoming post on the Knights Templar (they built a church on the moor). If you have ever delved into this Medieval order then you might note that it is quite the  fertile ground for conspiracists.

Greg Hallett is most definitely a conspiracy theorist. His main treatise is a five volume (!) epic based on the premise that the legitimate King of England is in fact a small Portuguese male named Marcos Manoel.

It is not really the content of dear Mr. Hallett’s oeuvre that interests me – although admittedly the Second World War could well have been a mystic simulacra conjured by Nazi Rosicrucians – it is more the sheer volume of his work.

Writing is considerable undertaking, indeed, a sodding enormous undertaking. Effort, time, commitment and sustained application of thought are needed to produce a meagre blog post. This gentleman has produced 15 books over a twelve year period, at a rough average of 300 pages each. 3600 pages. The standard average of words per page is about 250. 900 000 words.

I will also admit that if you are writing completely incomprehensible bollocks then this target might be easier to achieve. But I would still defy most authors to reach such a dizzying output. I fear I would Hemmingway my brains over my spartan room with quivering, RSI wracked fingers if I attempted it.

So clearly Hallett is gently prodded by feverish insanity. I am not the first to point out, with mildly envious tones, the frightening industry of the zealot, David Icke’s biblically proportioned unscripted lectures (or ramblings, whatever) have been met with raised eyebrows previously.

I realise as I write that it is not even the mighty output that really interests me. It is the thought processes, the mental pathways taken by the conspiracist. How are they so convinced in the veracity of their conclusions?

Surety is a strange thing to me, I am a Sociologist at heart. I cannot be convinced by any truth, no matter how convincingly it is espoused.

The mentality of Hallett and his ilk is fascinating, their truth is completely and comprehensively unconvincing to me, yet they are moved to write about it with deep conviction.

So my question would be where does the thought process differ from the religious evangelist, the ardent Marxist, the dogmatic atheist? Does it differ?

The concluding world view differs, greatly, of course. Some are more convincing, it would take a different mind (maybe) to conclude with a Reptilian World Order than with Reductionist Materialism, as the Scientist would (by that I mean a gross generalisation of some modern scientists with one famous, exemplary proselytiser settling in my mind) and perhaps one has more validity than the other.

Nonetheless the part, or process, of the brain that convinces itself of truth, of finding the truth, of that slightly superior discovery of enlightenment over others would remain the same would it not? Would it then be fair to label the titular author as insane as I did previously? Perhaps he just found his subjective truth.

I don’t know, blame Nietzsche, I blame Nietzsche.